96
4
The win-win discourse on protected areas can be seen as an important element
of what Igoe et al. (2010) following Sklair (2001) label as ‘the sustainable development historic bloc’ where networks of the above mentioned actors present markets,
commodification and consumerism as key tools to ensure a combination of economic growth and biodiversity conservation.
4.4 Challenges to the Win-Win Discourse
Two very different challenges to the win-win discourse can be identified. First, there
is what we will term a ‘radical discourse on protected areas’. Here, the interests and
rights of local communities are the primary concerns. Strong resistance is expressed
against external top-down intervention in the form of conservation, and it is questioned whether the practices of local communities are a threat to sound environmental conservation. Furthermore, it is argued that practices labelled ‘win- win’
rarely involve real devolution of authority, but on the contrary lead to political and
economic marginalization. Customary rights and historical use of land and natural
resources are, in addition, often not recognized by states, which easily leads to local
communities being overrun by the state or international organizations.
It is argued within this discourse that the financial benefits received by local
communities are modest, and that these benefits must be compared to the costs
borne by people who live where the area protection is established or extended. It is
also claimed that protection of biodiversity tends to be prioritized over poverty
alleviation if these two processes are seen to be in conflict with each other (e.g.
Neumann 1998; Dzingirai 2003; Chapin 2004; Kepe 2004; Sullivan 2006; Igoe and
Croucher 2007; Benjaminsen et al. 2008).
Finally, attempts at introducing community-based conservation may also work
as a mechanism for dispossession of villagers’ access to resource benefits from village land allowing conservation a foothold in these lands. This does not need to
involve re-location and may happen through a gradual and piecemeal process or it
may involve violence in other cases (Benjaminsen and Bryceson 2012).
The radical discourse is produced by actors such as local residents close to protected areas, their supporters including activists for indigenous groups and human
rights activists, as well political ecologists and other critical scholars.
The other challenge to the win-win discourse consists of a type of renaissance
of the old fortress conservation discourse (see Wilshusen et al. 2002; Brechin et al.
2003; Hutton et al. 2005). A number of preservation biologists and conservationists have claimed that when local communities are involved in the management of
conservation areas, conservation is weakened in such a way that biodiversity is
threatened (Kramer et al. 1997; Brandon et al. 1998; Oates 1999; Terborgh 1999;
Sanderson and Redford 2003; Du Toit et al. 2004). These actors argue instead for
a management, which is totally controlled by central agencies and based on scientific research. Concern for population growth in and around conservation areas is
also used to reinforce the fortress conservation discourse (e.g. Veldhuis et al. 2019).
The argument is that the numbers of people and livestock have become so high that
community benefits represent a threat to conservation.
Chapter 4 · Conservation Discourses Versus Practices
4
The win-win discourse on protected areas can be seen as an important element
of what Igoe et al. (2010) following Sklair (2001) label as ‘the sustainable development historic bloc’ where networks of the above mentioned actors present markets,
commodification and consumerism as key tools to ensure a combination of economic growth and biodiversity conservation.
4.4 Challenges to the Win-Win Discourse
Two very different challenges to the win-win discourse can be identified. First, there
is what we will term a ‘radical discourse on protected areas’. Here, the interests and
rights of local communities are the primary concerns. Strong resistance is expressed
against external top-down intervention in the form of conservation, and it is questioned whether the practices of local communities are a threat to sound environmental conservation. Furthermore, it is argued that practices labelled ‘win- win’
rarely involve real devolution of authority, but on the contrary lead to political and
economic marginalization. Customary rights and historical use of land and natural
resources are, in addition, often not recognized by states, which easily leads to local
communities being overrun by the state or international organizations.
It is argued within this discourse that the financial benefits received by local
communities are modest, and that these benefits must be compared to the costs
borne by people who live where the area protection is established or extended. It is
also claimed that protection of biodiversity tends to be prioritized over poverty
alleviation if these two processes are seen to be in conflict with each other (e.g.
Neumann 1998; Dzingirai 2003; Chapin 2004; Kepe 2004; Sullivan 2006; Igoe and
Croucher 2007; Benjaminsen et al. 2008).
Finally, attempts at introducing community-based conservation may also work
as a mechanism for dispossession of villagers’ access to resource benefits from village land allowing conservation a foothold in these lands. This does not need to
involve re-location and may happen through a gradual and piecemeal process or it
may involve violence in other cases (Benjaminsen and Bryceson 2012).
The radical discourse is produced by actors such as local residents close to protected areas, their supporters including activists for indigenous groups and human
rights activists, as well political ecologists and other critical scholars.
The other challenge to the win-win discourse consists of a type of renaissance
of the old fortress conservation discourse (see Wilshusen et al. 2002; Brechin et al.
2003; Hutton et al. 2005). A number of preservation biologists and conservationists have claimed that when local communities are involved in the management of
conservation areas, conservation is weakened in such a way that biodiversity is
threatened (Kramer et al. 1997; Brandon et al. 1998; Oates 1999; Terborgh 1999;
Sanderson and Redford 2003; Du Toit et al. 2004). These actors argue instead for
a management, which is totally controlled by central agencies and based on scientific research. Concern for population growth in and around conservation areas is
also used to reinforce the fortress conservation discourse (e.g. Veldhuis et al. 2019).
The argument is that the numbers of people and livestock have become so high that
community benefits represent a threat to conservation.
Chapter 4 · Conservation Discourses Versus Practices